Science-Based Lawmaking: How to Effectively Integrate Science in International Environmental Law PDF
Preview Science-Based Lawmaking: How to Effectively Integrate Science in International Environmental Law
Dionysia-Theodora Avgerinopoulou Science- Based Lawmaking How to Eff ectively Integrate Science in International Environmental Law Science-Based Lawmaking Dionysia-Theodora Avgerinopoulou Science-Based Lawmaking How to Effectively Integrate Science in International Environmental Law Dionysia-TheodoraAvgerinopoulou EuropeanInstituteofLaw,ScienceandTechnology Athens,Greece ISBN978-3-030-21416-6 ISBN978-3-030-21417-3 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-21417-3 ©SpringerNatureSwitzerlandAG2019 Thisworkissubjecttocopyright.AllrightsarereservedbythePublisher,whetherthewholeorpartofthe materialisconcerned,specificallytherightsoftranslation,reprinting,reuseofillustrations,recitation, broadcasting,reproductiononmicrofilmsorinanyotherphysicalway,andtransmissionorinformation storageandretrieval,electronicadaptation,computersoftware,orbysimilarordissimilarmethodology nowknownorhereafterdeveloped. Theuseofgeneraldescriptivenames,registerednames,trademarks,servicemarks,etc.inthispublication doesnotimply,evenintheabsenceofaspecificstatement,thatsuchnamesareexemptfromtherelevant protectivelawsandregulationsandthereforefreeforgeneraluse. The publisher, the authors, and the editorsare safeto assume that the adviceand informationin this bookarebelievedtobetrueandaccurateatthedateofpublication.Neitherthepublishernortheauthorsor theeditorsgiveawarranty,expressorimplied,withrespecttothematerialcontainedhereinorforany errorsoromissionsthatmayhavebeenmade.Thepublisherremainsneutralwithregardtojurisdictional claimsinpublishedmapsandinstitutionalaffiliations. ThisSpringerimprintispublishedbytheregisteredcompanySpringerNatureSwitzerlandAG. Theregisteredcompanyaddressis:Gewerbestrasse11,6330Cham,Switzerland Preface Inthebook,IcriticizethecurrentcorpusofInternationalEnvironmentalLaw(IEL) asinadequatetoeffectivelyandinatimelymannerprotectourglobalenvironment.I explore this inadequacy by tracking two factors: first, under the current global governance system, IEL is influenced primarily by political and financial factors, rather than scientific inputs; second, the lawmaking processes that prevail in IEL followanold-fashionedparadigm,wherepoliticalentitiesholdthelegislativepower, andexperts,includingnaturalandsocialscientists,retainonlyconsultativeorreview powers,withoutanydecision-makingcompetence.Sincethetraditionallawmaking models consistently fail to protect the natural environment, I argue that experts, legitimized by their knowledge of issues related to the protection of our global environment, and consequently public health should have a stronger say in the lawmaking process at the international level. The present book explores the ways bywhichsuchdelegationoflawmakingpowerscanoccurbasedontheredesignof theinternationallawmakingmodels,whilerespectingthenecessaryrequirementsof democracyandaccountability. WhenIstartedworkingonthistopic,IhadalreadyearnedanL.L.M.,agraduate degreewithaspecializationinInternationalEnvironmentalLaw,andIwasworking asaresearcherattheYaleCenterforEnvironmentalLawandPolicy(Y.C.E.L.P.)at Yale University. At that time, through my membership in the expert community, I identifiedwiththeperspectiveoftheexperts.Bytheendofthewritingofthisbook, however,Ihadgainedanadditionalidentity,and,inmanyways,amoreinfluential one; Ihadbeenvestedwith thedutiesofaMemberoftheParliamentinGreece. I, then,hadthechancetoseebothperspectivesofthelawmakingprocesses—boththe perspectiveofanexpertandapolitician.WhenIfirstjoinedtheParliament,Ithought my new position might influence my perspective on the dissertation and make me changeitsbasicassumptionthat,side-by-sidewithpoliticians,expertsshouldhavea strongersayintheInternationalEnvironmentalLawmakingproceduresthatthesay they have today. However, my assumption remained unchanged and, indeed, has been reinforced. Further, I have realized that, like the inadequate integration of science in the international context of Environmental Law, similar problems also v vi Preface existinthedomesticcontext.Statesshouldalsoadoptmoreflexibleandprogressive lawmakingprocessesinthedomesticlevel,aswell,iftheyareinterestedintohaving updated and science-based legislation. Knowledge management procedures could alsohelpsubstantiallyatthedomesticlevel,aswell. Beforecommencingtheargumentationinthecurrentbook,itisimperativethatI, above all, emphasize the significant role that the protection of our natural environ- ment plays in preserving human and non-human life, public health, and quality of life. The fundamental hypothesis of the book is that the protection of our global naturalenvironmenthasemergedasoneofthemostfundamentalvaluesinsocieties all over the world. One manifestation of this value climax is the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), which the UN adopted in September 2015: most of the SDGs that guide the actions and initiatives of all of the countries and interna- tional organizations in the coming years are focused on environment, energy, and climate change-related goals. Now that the international community has agreed on these goals, research should focus on how to achieve them. The present book attempts to explore and propose some of the ways in which the International Institutionscanhelptothisend. Athens,Greece Dionysia-TheodoraAvgerinopoulou April2019 Acknowledgments The book is based on my Doctoral Thesis at Columbia University School of Law. Forthisreason,firstandforemost,IwouldliketoextendmygratitudetotheChairof myDoctoralCommittee,ProfessorPetrosC.Mavroidis,EdwinB.Parker,Professor of Foreign and Comparative Law, at Columbia University School of Law, New York, N.Y. Prof. Mavroidis, who apart from expertly fulfilling his duties as the Chair of the Doctoral Committee, also helped me develop the quality of persistence as a researcher. Further, I would also like to thank Professor Edward Lloyd, Evan M. Frankel, Clinical Professor in Environmental Law, and Professor EdwardW.Merrill,CharlesEvansHughes,ProfessorofLawatColumbiaUniver- sity School of Law, as well as Robert Howse, Lloyd C. Nelson, Professor of International Law at New York University School of Law for all the time they spentreviewingthebook.FromtheirperspectivesasexpertsinU.S.Environmental LawandInternationalLaw,theyprovidedinvaluableinsightsforthedevelopmentof thebook’sargumentation. Further, I was very fortunate to have been taught by and to have worked with important leaders in the field of Environmental Law, including Justice Michael DeclerisattheGreekCouncilofStateandProfessorsDanielC.EstyatYaleSchool of Forestry and Yale Law School, and Lisa Heinzerling at Georgetown University Law Center, who influenced the content of the book through their unparalleled, progressive,andethicalscholarship.Iwouldliketothankmyparents,Zisimosand LambriniAvgerinopoulou,andmyclosefriendswhohaveofferedmetheirinvalu- able support during the many years that I studied abroad. Further, I would like to thank colleagues and friends working as administrators at international organiza- tions, including the European Union, for all the light they shed upon my misty thoughtsaboutthepracticesoftheseinstitutionsregardingtheintegrationprocesses ofscienceinInternational Environmental Law. Funding for research wasprovided by the Alexander S. Onassis Public Benefit Foundation, the State Scholarship Foundation(I.K.Y.)ofGreece,theNorthAtlanticTreatyOrganizationScholarship Fund, the GerondelisFoundation, and theColumbia University School ofLaw via the Cutting Fellowship in International Law. I am immensely grateful to all of the vii viii Acknowledgments aforementioned institutions for funding my extensive research and enabling me to complete the book. I am also indebted to Prof. Richard Steward, John Edward Sexton,ProfessorofLawfromtheNewYorkUniversitySchoolofLaw,andProf. LoriDamrosch,HenryL.Moses,ProfessorofLawandInternationalOrganization, Hamilton Fish, Prof. of Intl. Law and Diplomacy for giving me the opportunity to workwiththeminresearchprojectsandbenefitfromtheirextensiveknowledgeon Environmental and International Law, respectively, as well as receive additional fundsformyresearch. Contents 1 Introduction:IsContemporaryInternationalEnvironmental LawBasedonScience?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1.1 ArbitraryAdoptionofLawsBeforetheEyesofan Environmentalist. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 1.2 CaseStudy:TheRegulationsoftheInternationalSeabed Authority. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 1.3 DefinitionsoftheMainTerms-of-Art. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 1.3.1 CompositionofandRoleDistinctionBetweenPolitical andExpertBodies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 1.3.2 ExpertsasNaturalandSocialScientists. . . . . . . . . . . 11 1.3.3 Science-BasedPolicyMaking,Science-BasedDecision- MakingandScience-BasedLawmaking. . . . . . . . . . . 15 1.4 FirstAttempttoDefineScience-BasedLawmaking. . . . . . . . . 21 2 HistoricalBackground:WhatAretheLessonsLearntfrom thePastandWhatRemainsToBeAnswered. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 2.1 FromPlato’sPhilosopher-KingtoEnlightment,Noocracy, ExpertTechnocracyandEco-technocracy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 2.2 MilestoneInstrumentsCallingforEffectiveIntegration ofScienceinInternationalEnvironmentalLaw. . . . . . . . . . . . 35 2.2.1 EarlyBilateralandMultilateralEnvironmental Conventions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 2.2.2 AcknowledgmentoftheImportanceofScience inTreaty-Making. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 2.2.3 TheRoadtoStockholm. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 2.2.4 The1972StockholmConferenceontheHuman Environment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 2.2.5 The1992UNConferenceonEnvironment andDevelopment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 ix x Contents 2.2.6 TheStateofInternationalEnvironmentalLaw atthe2002UNWorldConferenceonSustainable Development. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 2.2.7 DeploymentofNewEnvironmentalTools:Risk AssessmentsandEnvironmentalImpactAssessments.... 64 PartI PathologyofInternationalEnvironmentalLaw 3 FragmentationofScience,InternationalEnvironmentalLaw, andInternationalInstitutions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 3.1 ThePrincipleofSpecializationinInternationalInstitutions. . . 78 3.2 TheNeedforanEcosystemsApproachandanIntegrated Approach. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 3.3 IntegratedApproachandInstitutionalCooperation. . . . . . . . . 81 3.4 DelaysinInternationalResponsestoNewEnvironmental ProblemsSuchasClimateChange. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83 3.5 ImpotencetoDesignLarge-ScaleScientificModels. . . . . . . . . 86 3.6 EffortsforthePromulgationofaCoherentSetofGeneral PrinciplesofInternationalEnvironmentalLaw. . . . . . . . . . . . 88 3.6.1 MontevideoProgram. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88 3.6.2 TheCaseoftheUnitedNationsForumonForests. . . 90 4 CausesofPathology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93 4.1 VaguenessoftheProvisionsinInternationalEnvironmental Law. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93 4.2 LegislativeInactionintheFaceofScientificUncertainty. . . . . 99 4.2.1 ChaosTheoryandCertainty. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99 4.3 QuestioningScience. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103 4.4 GreenCritiquesonthePowerStructureofScience. . . . . . . . . 105 4.5 EcologicIlliteracy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108 4.6 WhyIsItNowtheRightTimeforaScience-Based LawmakingModel?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108 4.7 AcquisitionofLawmakingCompetencesbyInternational Organizations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112 4.8 IntegrationofScienceandExpertiseinthePyramid ofInternationalEnvironmentalLaw. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114 4.9 ThePrinciplesofSustainabilityasaFirstOverallFramework fortheAdoptionofSecondaryLegislation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116 4.10 SecondAttempttoDefineScience-BasedLawmaking. . . . . . . 117 PartII NormativePowersoftheInternationalInstitutionswith EnvironmentalCompetence 5 ContemporaryLawmakingProcessesandProgressiveLawmaking ProcessesThatBindtheStatesWithoutUnanimousVote. . . . . . . . 121 5.1 TheoreticalFrameworkoftheLawmakingCompetences oftheInternationalInstitutions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121 5.1.1 FromFunctionalismtoNeoinstitutionalism. . . . . . . . 124
The list of books you might like
